@zappazapper said in Game analysis - Replay #14886292:
@cheeseberry said in Game analysis - Replay #14886292:
Very intriguing read, love it!
I don't quite agree with some of your analysis but you already knew that it's not perfect, so who cares.
As long as you keep going at it with a mindset like this, you are bound to improve. So keep up the good work!
Well, I care!! I'd love to hear your thoughts on specific things you disagreed with, even if I still don't agree with you
Biass already talked about quite a few points that were on my list as well, the most important one being that Sup Com is indeed a game focused on macro, and not micro.
Or phrased differently: Supreme Commander is a game about getting more stuff.
First and foremost, this means that you need to spend your mass on stuff, because mass in the bank does literally nothing for you.
Just spending your mass is imo by far the most important thing to focus on.
Once your massbar is empty, how do you get more stuff? Well you need to get more mass. As a consequence: Supreme Commander is a game about getting more mass.
Why are mexes and reclaim good?
More mass and hence more stuff.
Why is map control good?
Map control leads to more mexes and more reclaim, which leads to more mass. (Also it gives scouting information, but nobody below 1k scouts, so who cares.)
Why are armies good?
Not only do they keep you alive, so that you can spend your mass on stuff, armies are also used to take stuff from your opponent and if your opponent has less stuff, you comparatively have more stuff.
Why are t2 mexes good?
If you don't sacrifice too much to get them, they will lead to more mass and hence more stuff in the future.
The only strategies that fall outside of the "get more stuff" plan are snipes, cheeses and memes. To be clear, all of them are valid strategies sometimes - many tournament games have been won by a well executed snipe after all - they are just not worth focusing on w/o having your fundamentals in order.
Note that I didn't even say what "stuff" you should actually build, because fundamentally it doesn't matter (yet).
If you have twice the total mass of your opponent and you just spend it on something that can attack, it becomes very easy to win the game.
In your analysis you are talking about unit movements, army compositions, attacks that did or didn't work, intie micro, tech levels, pgen adjacency, and so on, none of which matters (yet).
Your final bullet points almost hit the nail on the head as they are all different versions of "I failed to get mass when I had the opportunity."
Crucially though, you do have a full mass bar from minute 6 to minute 14 which you mention only once, even though it's the most important of all of them.
In short: This is a game about more stuff and by extension a game about getting and then spending more mass. Everything else is just details.